PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

Project

County

P.I. No.

A.Applicability

If completed with a CE, add Need and Purpose and Project Description here or attach separately.

The proposed project consists of . A minor amount of land (acre) from would be used (acquired) to implement the project. Based on the applicability criteria discussed below, this project is of the type listed in the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration's "Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FederallyAided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with Historic Sites."

A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation is applicable to this particular project because:

  1. The proposed project is designed to improve the operational characteristics, safety, and physical condition of on essentially the same alignment.
  1. The Section 4(f) land is a located adjacent to existing .
  1. The proposed project does not require the removal or alteration of historic buildings, structures or objects on the historic site.
  1. The project does not require the disturbance or removal of archaeological resources that are important to preserve in place rather than to recover for archaeological research. This determination has been coordinated with the Georgia SHPO.
  1. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.5, the FHWA has determined in consultation with the Georgia SHPO that the proposed project would have on the National Register qualifying characteristics of the .
  1. The SHPO has agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts and the proposed mitigation.
  1. The FHWA has determined that the proposed project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

B.Alternatives

The following alternatives were considered to avoid any use of land from:

  1. No-Build (Do Nothing);
  1. Improve without using land from the adjacent ;
  1. Build an improved facility on new location without using land from the .

C.Findings

A discussion of the basis for concluding that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of Section 4(f)land should be included. The supporting information must demonstrate that “there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.” This language should appear in the document together with the supporting information.

The following findings were made as a result of the evaluation of avoidance alternatives:

  1. Do Nothing Alternative. The No Build or Do Nothing Alternative is not feasible and prudent because: (a) it would not correct existing or projected capacity deficiencies ; OR (b) it would not correct existing safety hazards; OR (c) it would not correct existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance problems; and (d) not providing such correction would constitute a cost or community impact of extraordinary magnitude, or would result in truly unusual or unique problems, when compared with the proposed use of the Section 4(f) lands.
  1. Improvement without Using the Adjacent Section 4(f) Lands. It is not feasible and prudent to avoid Section 4(f) lands by roadway design or transportation system management techniques (e.g., minor alignment shifts, changes in geometric design standards, use of retaining walls and/or other structures, and traffic diversions or other traffic management measures) because implementing such measures would result in: (a) substantial adverse community impacts to adjacent homes, businesses or other improved properties; OR (b) substantially increased roadway or structure costs; OR (c) unique engineering, traffic, maintenance, or safety problems; OR (d) substantial adverse social, economic or environmental impacts; OR (e) the project not meeting identified transportation needs; and (f) the impacts, costs, or problems would be truly unusual or unique, or of extraordinary magnitude when compared with the proposed use of Section 4(f) lands.
  1. Alternatives on New Location. It is not feasible and prudent to avoid Section 4(f) lands by constructing on new alignment because: (a) the new location would not solve existing transportation, safety, or maintenance problems; OR (b) the new location would result in substantial adverse social, economic or environmental impacts (including such impacts as extensive severing of productive farmlands, displacement of a substantial number or families or businesses, serious disruption of established travel patterns, substantial damage to wetlands or other sensitive natural areas, or greater impacts to other Section 4(f) lands); OR (c) the new location would substantially increase costs or engineering difficulties (such as an inability to achieve minimum design standards, or to meet the requirements of various permitting agencies such as those involved with navigation, pollution, and the environment); and (d) such problems, impacts, costs, or difficulties would be truly unusual or unique, or of extraordinary magnitude when compared with the proposed use of Section 4(f) lands.

D.Measures to Minimize Harm

A discussion of the basis for concluding that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. When there are no feasible and prudent alternatives which avoid the use of Section 4(f) land, the final Section 4(f) evaluation must demonstrate that the preferred alternative is a feasible and prudent alternative with the least harm on the Section 4(f) resources after considering mitigation to the Section 4(f) resources.

E.Coordination

A summary of the appropriate formal coordination with the Headquarters Office of DOI (and/or appropriate agency under that Department) and, as appropriate, the involved offices of USDA and HUD should be included.

Copies of all formal coordination comments and a summary of other relevant Section 4(f) comments received and an analysis and response to any questions raised. Where new alternatives or modifications to existing alternatives are identified and will not be given further consideration, the basis for dismissing these alternatives should be provided and supported by factual information. Where Section 6(f) land is involved, the National Park Service’s position on the land transfer should be documented.

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, the effects of the project have been provided to the Georgia SHPO.

Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the (identify Section 4(f) property) and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resulting from such use.